How Motivated Reasoning Shapes Our Choices and Rationalizes Our Beliefs

We don’t just make decisions—we justify them, often in ways that align with our immediate goals and deeply held values

This post is the first in a three-series of exploring motivated reasoning and decision making. A previous version of this post was published on Psychology Today.

Photo by SHVETS production

Imagine John scrolling through his favorite website when an ad for a sleek, high-tech vacuuming robot catches his eye. His current vacuum works just fine, and, truth be told, he’s not in a financial position to make such a discretionary purchase. But as he watches the robot effortlessly navigate a cluttered living room in the ad, he begins to justify why buying it makes sense. “It’ll save me so much time,” he thinks. Before long, he’s convinced himself the purchase is not only reasonable but necessary, even though it directly contradicts his more practical priorities.

This scenario highlights the subtle power of motivated reasoning. Decisions generally aren’t made in a vacuum (pardon the pun); they’re shaped by a mix of competing goals, situational characteristics, and the values we prioritize in the moment. While these influences can help us adapt to our circumstances and make sense of complex trade-offs, they can also lead us to favor conclusions that align more closely with what we want to believe than with what truly reflects our broader goals and priorities.

This phenomenon, known as motivated reasoning, plays a central role in how we process information and make decisions. While motivated reasoning can help us align our choices with our goals and values, it also has the potential to distort our judgments, particularly when those goals conflict or when accuracy takes a backseat to other priorities.

To better understand the role motivated reasoning plays in our decision making, we first need to explore the foundational role that goals and values have in shaping our choices.

The Importance of Goals for Decision Making

Most decisions we make, whether conscious or unconscious, are influenced by motivation—an underlying purpose or inclination often tied to achieving a goal. These goals range from the practical, like deciding which TV to purchase or when to make dinner, to the aspirational, such as advancing a career or building stronger relationships.

Goals arise from the values we hold, which act as the foundation for what we prioritize and pursue. Yet, these values do not operate at a conscious level all the time. Instead, they linger in the background and become influential only when activated by specific situations. For example, encountering a situation that requires defending a loved one might bring values like loyalty or care to the forefront, motivating goals consistent with those values.

Some goals reflect relational values, such as those outlined in Haidt’s Moral Foundation Theory (MFT) or Curry’s Morality-as-Cooperation (MAC) Theory, which emphasize moral priorities like loyalty, fairness, and compassion. Other goals reflect more personal values, as discussed in McClelland’s Needs Theory, Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, or the much-maligned Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs¹.

However, goals seldom exist in a vacuum, and they can interact. These interactions can be both complementary and conflicting. For example, achieving a promotion might align with the goal of financial stability, making it easier to afford a new car or save for future needs (a complementary relationship). At the same time, it could conflict with relational goals, such as spending quality time with family or supporting a partner through a challenging period, as the added responsibilities and time demands of the promotion pull focus away from personal relationships. Similarly, the pursuit of professional success might enhance one’s sense of accomplishment and autonomy, but it could clash with deeply held values like fairness or care if the new role requires decisions that affect others in ways inconsistent with those values.

These interactions illustrate how goals are not only shaped by practical considerations but also reflect the influence of relational and personal values. While complementary goals seldom pose an issue and often align naturally, conflicting goals require us to prioritize, reconcile trade-offs, or find creative solutions. For instance, choosing between advancing one’s career and maintaining strong family connections might involve setting boundaries at work, restructuring family routines, or reassessing long-term priorities. These moments of prioritization and trade-offs are where motivated reasoning often comes into play, as we justify the decisions that align with our activated values and salient goals.

When Goals Conflict

As decision makers, we often face competing goals and interests. These conflicts compel us to balance priorities, by prioritizing one goal over another, revising our goals to be more aligned, or finding a compromise. How we navigate these situations often hinges on evaluating the trade-offs we find acceptable.

Consider a simple but common scenario: you’re running late. Do you speed to make up for lost time, knowing it increases your risk of getting a ticket or being involved in an accident? The answer often depends on several situational factors: How late are you? How important is it to be on time? Where are you going? How heavy is the traffic? Each of these questions reflects a different priority—safety, punctuality, financial, and reputational concerns. How you answer them, and the relative weight you attach to those answers, will shape how you proceed—whether you decide to drive as fast as needed to make it on time, stick to your normal speed and arrive late, or settle on a middle ground by driving slightly faster than usual to minimize the delay.

This example illustrates the essence of motivated reasoning: we reason our way into a conclusion that aligns with our goals in that situation. It doesn’t have to be an erroneous conclusion, just one connected to our goals. Motivated reasoning helps us navigate the trade-offs between competing goals, guiding us toward decisions that feel justifiable and aligned with our immediate priorities.

However, motivated reasoning isn’t always straightforward or benign. The goals we prioritize in a given moment are often shaped by the values activated by the situation. For instance, the urgency of being on time might temporarily overshadow a longer-term value like safety. Motivated reasoning allows us to rationalize this prioritization, even if it contradicts our goal of being a safe driver.

In some cases, motivated reasoning can lead to careful, deliberate decision making; in others, it might result in rationalizations that favor immediate convenience over long-term considerations. While it is an adaptive tool that helps us navigate complex trade-offs, motivated reasoning can lead us astray when we lose sight of our broader values or fail to critically examine the trade-offs we’re making.

The Dynamics of Motivated Reasoning

Motivated reasoning isn’t inherently problematic. In fact, it’s adaptive, helping us navigate complex trade-offs by aligning decisions with the values activated by a given situation and the salient goals that stem from them. However, problems arise when motivated reasoning leads us to decisions that are inconsistent with our espoused values or stated priorities.

For example, someone might claim to value health and fitness but skip workouts or indulge in unhealthy eating habits when stressed or busy. These decisions aren’t inherently wrong—they reflect the kinds of trade-offs we make when situational goals, like managing stress or saving time, temporarily overshadow espoused longer-term priorities. The tension between situationally-relevant and broader espoused goals reveals the double-edged nature of motivated reasoning: while it allows us to adapt to immediate demands, it can also result in choices that conflict with our overarching intentions.

This dynamic highlights the factors that often contribute to such misalignments between our decisions and our broader goals. Three key forces come into play: goal/value conflict, strong biases, and the rationalization of our decisions. Together, these elements shape how we reason our way into decisions that may momentarily satisfy immediate needs but ultimately conflict with stated or espoused priorities.

Goal/Value Conflict

Motivated reasoning arises when a situation activates competing goals or values, compelling us to prioritize one over the other. Often, this is adaptive and helps us navigate trade-offs. For example, a student who values academic success might decide to take a night off from studying after a stressful day. The student reasons that relaxation will recharge her, allowing her to study more effectively later. In this case, the short-term goal of rest doesn’t necessarily conflict with the long-term goal of academic achievement.

However, situational factors can sometimes prompt reasoning that prioritizes short-term goals at the expense of broader, long-term objectives. Consider the example of someone who becomes angry during a heated workplace disagreement and impulsively quits his job. The emotion activates a decision that feels justified in the moment, but it may conflict with the person’s overarching goals like financial stability, career advancement, or supporting a family.

These examples illustrate how situational strength influences which goals or values take precedence. Motivated reasoning involves reasoning our way into decisions that align with the most salient or activated goal. While this process is often adaptive, it becomes problematic when short-term goals dominate in ways that undermine long-term objectives or broader values.

Strong Biases

When goals compete, biases often steer us toward prioritizing certain goals or values over others. These biases typically arise from deeply held beliefs, intense emotions, or self-serving motives that elevate immediate preferences above broader considerations.

For instance, someone with a deeply held belief in the effectiveness of her investment strategy might dismiss external advice about investment decisions that challenges those beliefs, even when if the advice accurate and well-founded. The deeply held belief creates a bias that reinforces the person’s perspective, leading her to prioritize maintaining it, even at the expense of her broader goal of financial stability.

Similarly, strong emotions create biases that shift priorities in favor of acting on the emotion rather than considering other goals or values. For example, a manager who feels disrespected by a team member’s critique of a decision might focus solely on the perceived slight, reasoning that the critique is unwarranted or unfair—even if it contains valuable insights. The strong emotion generates a bias toward defending his authority, prioritizing that response over the long-term goal of fostering improved decision making.

Finally, self-serving motives bias our decisions toward self-interests at the expense of other relevant priorities. For example, someone might justify exaggerating sales figures to secure a bonus or promotion, assuming the benefits that come with the bonus or promotion, reasoning that the immediate benefits outweigh the ethical considerations of honesty and fairness. In this case, the bias toward self-interest overrides broader goals, creating a reinforcing loop that prioritizes the chosen course of action.

Biases are not inherently negative—they often help us make decisions more efficiently and maintain alignment with our goals and values. However, when strong biases dominate our reasoning, they can lead to decisions that prioritize the biased response over other important considerations. When this happens, the decisions we make may conflict with overarching goals or principles, ultimately undermining decision-making quality.

Rationalization of Decisions

The final piece in the puzzle of motivated reasoning is the ability to construct “a justification of [our] desired conclusion that would persuade a dispassionate observer” (Kunda, 1990, pp. 482-483). This doesn’t mean the reasoning has to be flawless or universally convincing; it simply needs to feel credible enough to validate the decision in our own minds or to others. When the first two factors—goal/value conflict and strong biases—are present, the ability to rationalize our choices becomes a powerful mechanism for reinforcing them.

Rationalization often takes the form of selective attention to evidence that supports the desired conclusion while downplaying or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. For instance, someone rationalizing a decision to buy an expensive car might focus heavily on its safety features and fuel efficiency while conveniently ignoring the strain on the person’s budget. This rationalization prioritizes the immediate desire for the car over the long-term financial trade-offs, creating a narrative that aligns with the desired outcome.

This selective reasoning can extend to how we weigh costs and benefits. Consider someone deciding to skip a difficult conversation with a colleague, rationalizing the decision by focusing on the short-term benefit of avoiding conflict. In doing so, the person may underprioritize the long-term costs, such as unresolved issues that could escalate later. By emphasizing the immediate benefit and downplaying potential drawbacks, she constructs a rationale that aligns with the short-term emotional goal of avoiding discomfort.

Rationalization also enables us to prioritize one value or goal over another, even when this prioritization conflicts with our broader principles. For example, an employee who takes credit for a colleague’s idea might rationalize it as a necessary step to secure a promotion in a competitive workplace. This reasoning elevates the goal of career advancement while minimizing the importance of fairness or teamwork and allows the employee to maintain a positive self-image.

While rationalization often involves a priori processes—where reasoning precedes the decision and guides it—it can also occur in a post-hoc fashion. In these cases, decisions are made intuitively or emotionally, and reasoning is applied afterward to justify the choice. For instance, someone might impulsively buy an expensive gadget because it “felt right” in the moment, only to later rationalize the purchase by emphasizing its long-term usefulness or advanced features. Here, conscious reasoning doesn’t drive the decision; instead, it follows as a way to align the choice with the person’s goals or values.

The danger in rationalization, whether a priori or post-hoc, lies not in the act of reasoning itself—after all, reasoning is integral to decision making—but in how it can entrench biases and short-term priorities, creating a self-reinforcing loop. Once we rationalize a decision, it becomes harder to re-evaluate it, even when new evidence or perspectives emerge (Yearsley & Pothos, 2016)². In this way, rationalization bridges the gap between our goals and the reasoning processes we use to achieve them, often making decisions feel more well-reasoned than they necessarily are.

Navigating Motivated Reasoning

Motivated reasoning is an inherent part of human decision making, and in many cases, it serves us well. By aligning decisions with our goals and values, it helps us make sense of trade-offs and navigate competing priorities in complex situations. Without this capacity, we’d struggle to act decisively or pursue meaningful objectives.

However, motivated reasoning does not always lead to sunshine and rainbows. When competing goals, strong biases, and subsequent rationalizations steer us toward decisions that conflict with our broader goals or espoused values, the consequences can be significant. Consider decisions made in moments of emotional intensity—texting while driving, reacting impulsively to workplace frustrations, or even crimes of passion. These choices often reflect reasoning consistent with immediate emotions or goals, but they undermine long-term priorities. As Kunda (1990) argued, “illusory beliefs… can be dangerous when they are used to guide behavior and decisions, especially in those cases in which objective reasoning could facilitate more adaptive behavior” (pp. 495-496).

To counteract some of the risks, consider these strategies:

1. Avoid making decisions during heightened emotional states. Strong emotions, whether positive or negative, can result in reasoning that prioritizes the emotion over long-term goals. Taking time to process the emotion can prevent impulsive decisions.

2. Be attentive to the desire to prove yourself right. The stronger the urge to defend a preferred conclusion, the more likely we are to overlook or dismiss evidence that contradicts it.

3. Avoid jumping to conclusions, and remain open to revising them. Prematurely settling on a conclusion can make us overly committed to it, even when evidence emerges that challenges its accuracy. Remaining flexible and willing to reevaluate helps ensure our decisions align with broader priorities rather than initial, situational biases.

Motivated reasoning isn’t something we can—or should—eliminate. It’s a natural part of navigating the complexities of competing priorities and values. However, by recognizing its dynamics, we can better align our decisions with our broader goals and avoid pitfalls that might lead us astray.

This post has focused on the mechanisms of motivated reasoning and its role in navigating goal conflicts. In the next post, we’ll explore how ideological commitments shape and amplify the biases underlying motivated reasoning, often leading to outcomes that feel justified in the moment but may reflect deeper distortions.

1. For more information on the issues underlying Maslow’s Hierarchy and the presentation of it as a pyramid, see Winter (2015), Enright (2018), and Chan (2020).

2. This is also referred to as Zeno’s paradox.